Travis Fisher, a Trump political appointee in the Department of Energy, wrote a 2015 report for the Institute for Energy Research that called clean energy policies “the single greatest emerging threat” to the nation’s electric power grid, and a greater threat to electric reliability than cyber attacks, terrorism, or extreme weather.

Travis Fisher wrote a 2015 report for the Institute for Energy Research.

The single greatest threat to reliable electricity in the U.S. does not come from natural disturbances or human attacks. Rather, the host of bad policies now coming from the federal government – and unfortunately from many state governments – is creating far greater and more predictable problems with grid reliability.

He also offered this overview:

New stresses on the electricity delivery system are coming primarily from two types of policies:

1) Regulations that directly shut down reliable sources of electricity, such as coal and nuclear power, and

2) Subsidies and mandates that force increased amounts of unreliable sources of electricity on the grid, such as wind and solar power, and undermine the normal operation of reliable power plants.

Together, these two types of policies create a much less reliable grid and increase the chances of a major blackout.

Baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid. We are blessed as a nation to have an abundance of domestic energy resources, such as coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric, all of which provide affordable base load power and contribute to a stable, reliable, and resilient grid. Over the last few years, however, grid experts have expressed concerns about the erosion of critical baseload resources.

Specifically, many have questioned the manner in which baseload power is dispatched and compensated. Still others have highlighted the diminishing diversity of our nation’s electric generation mix, and what that could mean for baseload power and grid resilience. This has resulted in part from regulatory burdens introduced by previous administrations that were designed to decrease coal-fired power generation. Such policies have destroyed jobs and economic growth, and they threaten to undercut the performance of the grid well into the future. Finally, analysts have thoroughly documented the market-distorting effects of federal subsidies that boost one form of energy at the expense of others. Those subsidies create acute and chronic problems for maintaining adequate baseload generation and have impacted reliable generators of all types.

Secretary Perry’s memorandum included a specific order to examine, “The extent to which continued regulatory burdens, as well as mandates and tax and subsidy policies, are responsible for forcing the premature retirement of baseload power plants.”

The clean energy policies that Fisher targeted for repeal in his 2015 study for IER provide some clues about the possible identity of the “mandates and tax and subsidy policies” to which Perry made vague reference in his memo. These included a mix of state and federal policies designed to increase the use of renewable energy, as well as reduce carbon dioxide and mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Fisher specifically recommended that policymakers repeal:

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards

Fisher also referenced “bureaucratic hurdles” at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which he claimed has contributed to closure of “reliable” nuclear power plants. He pointed to the NRC as a factor in the closing of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, but failed to mention the plant had been plagued by problems in recent years, including a cooling tower collapse and radioactive tritium leak.

Despite all the doomsday scenarios of electricity blackouts thrown into Travis Fisher’s 2015 grid study for IER, he never named a single example where one of these clean energy policies actually caused the lights to go out. Most of these policies had been on the books for years, without causing the sorts of blackouts that Fisher predicted for the near future.

During the 1970’s, electric utilities like American Electric Power ran ads that made the same sort of “doomsday predictions” about the Clean Air Act. In February 2015, the EPA responded to similar attacks on the Clean Power Plan by pointing out that, “… at no time in the more than 40 years that EPA has been implementing the Clean Air Act has compliance with air pollution standards resulted in reliability problems.”

Fisher should heed his own advice

“Heed the advice of grid experts, such as the electrical engineers at NERC, FERC, utilities, and regional transmission organizations,” Fisher recommended at the end of his 2015 study for IER.

Travis Fisher downplayed real threats to the power grid

“Extreme weather places immense stress on the electricity system,” Fisher admitted in his 2015 grid study for IER. “In fact, bad weather remains the number one cause of power outages.”

Fisher’s own words exposed his all too obvious attempt to mischaracterize clean energy policies as “the single greatest threat to reliable electricity,” as he put it. Meanwhile, DOE published a 2015 report that identified the ways that that extreme weather and climate change threaten reliable electricity in every region of the U.S.

In fact, he avoided any mention of the threat that climate change poses to the electric grid. He instead focused on his attacks on the Clean Power Plan, which set the first-ever national limits on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to climate change. Fisher even mixed in the sort of rhetoric common among the network of fossil fuel funded climate skeptics that IER and AEA are a part of.

“The problem with calling it the ‘Clean Power Plan’ is that carbon dioxide is not dirty but rather a clean, odorless gas,” Fisher wrote.

Fisher also downplayed the threat posed by cyber, electromagnetic pulse, or terrorist attacks on the nation’s power supply. He suggested the threat of U.S. retaliation served as an effective deterrent effect against attacks on the nation’s power grid. He acknowledged one real world example in San Jose, where quick action by the local utility averted a blackout after a 2014 sniper attack on a power substation.

However, Fisher ignored the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2011. While terrorists’ primary target in New York was the World Trade Center, the attack also knocked out power to Lower Manhattan and destroyed two power substations. More than 2,000 Con Edison employees eventually restored power after they laid down 36 miles of emergency cable to bring electricity back to the impacted area. Initial estimates by Con Edison put the cost of repairs at $400 million.

Fisher didn’t deny that extreme weather and “human attacks,” as he called them, posed significant threats, but he did mischaracterize clean energy policies as an even greater threat to the power grid.

Travis Fisher supported new infrastructure to benefit fossil fuels, but not for renewable energy

The 2015 grid study that Fisher wrote for IER also included support for escalating new oil and gas pipelines by overcoming what he described as “permitting delays” at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and at the state level. Many environmentalists view FERC as a “rubber stamp” for pipelines, a concern that’sonly increased since President Trump named his nominees to the commission.

Fisher wrote that use of fossil fuels was limited by a lack of infrastructure, and he was happy to spend other people’s money to fix it. Not so for renewable energy. Fisher argued that the grid should not be updated to integrate more wind and solar power.

“In other words, the incompatibility of wind and solar power on the grid is not a major drawback of the grid,” Fisher said. “Rather, it is a major drawback of these sources of power.”

Fisher encouraged government to engage in the very behavior that he and his “free market” allies in the Koch world routinely disparage: picking winners and losers in the energy market.

Travis Fisher is loyal to fossil fuel interests and powerful political donors

Travis Fisher is the subject of one edition of the John William Pope Foundation’s “achiever spotlight,” which highlights “the lives of individuals who have achieved much, thanks in large part to the generosity of nonprofits and organizations supported by the Foundation.”

After college, Fisher landed a job as an economist at FERC during the summer of 2006. After 7 years at the commission, he decided to take a job at IER in 2013. Fisher later shared his thinking on energy policy with the John William Pope Foundation.

“It seems conventional wisdom that government should get more involved in energy,” Fisher said in his achiever spotlight on JWPF.org. “It’s counter intuitive [sic] to argue that government should get out of energy. But I like the challenge.”

Who paid for Travis Fisher to serve on Trump’s Department of Energy landing team?

A list of landing team members on GreatAgain.gov, the Trump transition team’s website, disclosed Fisher’s “current or most recent employer” as IER, but did not list AEA – even though Fisher is listed as an “IER economist” and “AEA economist” on the groups’ respective websites. The transition team website also listed “funding source: private” for Fisher, while some other landing team members were identified as volunteers. The site did not disclose the private source of Fisher’s funding.

A separate financial disclosure filed by Fisher and published by The Intercept also disclosed his employment by IER, but not AEA. He also disclosed “Employment Assets and Retirement Plans,” which included his IER salary and related 401K, as well as his participation in the “Charles Koch Industries 401K.” In a section below titled, “Filer Employer Agreements and Arrangement,” Fisher disclosed to continue to participate in both 401K plans, but specified that both IER and the “Charles Koch Institute” would no longer make contributions.

A Google search revealed no previous record of Fisher’s employment with the Charles Koch Institute.

Just the latest sign of IER, AEA influence over Trump

It’s no coincidence that, now that Donald Trump is in the White House, some of the same clean energy policies that Fisher targeted for attack in his 2015 grid study for IER are now being rolled back.

During the Trump transition, an IER-AEA memo from the desk of Tom Pyle, which was obtained by the Center for Media & Democracy, predicted that the Clean Power Plan would be withdrawn by the Trump administration – even if courts upheld the rule.

Pyle, IER and AEA soon got their wish. Trump signed an executive order that began the process of reviewing the Clean Power Plan during his first 100 days in the White House. His administration also hit the pause button on the EPA’s legal efforts to defend the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, another target of Fisher’s 2015 IER report, in court.

What’s next?

With Fisher at the helm, the DOE grid study ordered by Rick Perry could serve as a convenient excuse when the Trump administration’s “review” of the Clean Power Plan culminates in a real plan to “suspend, revise, or rescind” the rule. It could also be used to justify attempts by the Trump administration to preempt state and local clean energy laws, though any such effort would face an uphill battle. Finally, the new DOE grid study could be used to reignite efforts to rollback renewable energy standards and net metering incentives at the state level.

In any case, clean energy supporters will have no shortage of evidence at the ready to debunk any erroneous claims made by Fisher, and make the case that renewable energy is affordable, reliable, and benefits our economy and the environment